{"id":775079,"date":"2026-04-30T07:53:27","date_gmt":"2026-04-30T05:53:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-48-18-9ptcbr-c1-a-s1-2019-01-10\/"},"modified":"2026-04-30T07:53:27","modified_gmt":"2026-04-30T05:53:27","slug":"acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-48-18-9ptcbr-c1-a-s1-2019-01-10","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-48-18-9ptcbr-c1-a-s1-2019-01-10\/","title":{"rendered":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 48\/18.9PTCBR.C1-A.S1 \u2013 2019-01-10"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"kji-decision\">\n<p class=\"kji-summary\">Relator: JULIO PEREIRA. I &#8212; H? oposi??o quando, no dom?nio da mesma legisla??o, o ac?rd?o recorrido e o ac?rd?o fundamento, relativamente ? mesma quest?o de direito, assentem em solu??es opostas ? cf. art. 437.?, n.?s 1 e 2, do CPP ? exigindo-se ainda, segundo jurisprud?ncia pac?fica do STJ, que haja identidade das situa??es de facto. II &#8212; ? manifesto que o recurso em apre?o n?o envolve qualquer diss?dio e muito menos oposi??o sobre quest?es de direito. O que o recorrente pretende ? que o STJ fixe jurisprud?ncia sobre uma quest?o de facto de ?ndole t?cnica, que ? a de saber se o aparelho (alcool?metro) de marca DRAGER e\/ou ALCOTESTE MKIII?P ? um e o mesmo modelo de vers?es melhoradas ou se na realidade se trata de modelos distintos entre si, com caracter?sticas distintas. Tal quest?o, a suscitar d?vidas, devia ter sido apurada na altura e em sede pr?prias atrav?s do IPQ ou da ANSR.<\/p>\n<hr class=\"kji-sep\" \/>\n<p class=\"kji-source-links\"><strong>Sources officielles :<\/strong> <a class=\"kji-source-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jstj.nsf\/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814\/2a13dec12ee0b4888025837f0034a18f?OpenDocument&#038;ExpandSection=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"kji-license-note\"><em>Portails officiels portugais (DGSI \/ Tribunal Constitucional). Republication en metadata_only par prudence licencielle ; consulter la source officielle pour le texte authentique.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Relator: JULIO PEREIRA. I &#8212; H? oposi??o quando, no dom?nio da mesma legisla??o, o ac?rd?o recorrido e o ac?rd?o fundamento, relativamente ? mesma quest?o de direito, assentem em solu??es opostas ? cf. art. 437.?, n.?s 1 e 2, do CPP ? exigindo-se ainda, segundo jurisprud?ncia pac?fica do STJ, que haja identidade das situa??es de facto. II &#8212; ? manifesto que o recurso em apre?o n?o envolve qualquer diss?dio e muito menos oposi??o sobre quest?es de direito. O que o recorrente pretende ? que o STJ fixe jurisprud?ncia sobre uma quest?o de facto de ?ndole t?cnica, que ? a de saber se o aparelho (alcool?metro) de marca DRAGER e\/ou ALCOTESTE MKIII?P ? um e o mesmo modelo de vers?es melhoradas ou se na realidade se trata de modelos distintos entre si, com caracter?sticas distintas. Tal quest?o, a suscitar d?vidas, devia ter sido apurada na altura e em sede pr?prias atrav?s do IPQ ou da ANSR.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7762],"kji_court":[7763],"kji_chamber":[7955],"kji_year":[45029],"kji_subject":[7724],"kji_keyword":[7772,7774,7771,7773,7636],"kji_language":[7770],"class_list":["post-775079","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-portugal","kji_court-supremo-tribunal-de-justica","kji_chamber-5-seco","kji_year-45029","kji_subject-civil","kji_keyword-acordao","kji_keyword-justica","kji_keyword-processo","kji_keyword-supremo","kji_keyword-tribunal","kji_language-pt"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.5 (Yoast SEO v27.5) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 48\/18.9PTCBR.C1-A.S1 \u2013 2019-01-10 - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-48-18-9ptcbr-c1-a-s1-2019-01-10\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 48\/18.9PTCBR.C1-A.S1 \u2013 2019-01-10\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Relator: JULIO PEREIRA. I - H? oposi??o quando, no dom?nio da mesma legisla??o, o ac?rd?o recorrido e o ac?rd?o fundamento, relativamente ? mesma quest?o de direito, assentem em solu??es opostas ? cf. art. 437.?, n.?s 1 e 2, do CPP ? exigindo-se ainda, segundo jurisprud?ncia pac?fica do STJ, que haja identidade das situa??es de facto. II - ? manifesto que o recurso em apre?o n?o envolve qualquer diss?dio e muito menos oposi??o sobre quest?es de direito. O que o recorrente pretende ? que o STJ fixe jurisprud?ncia sobre uma quest?o de facto de ?ndole t?cnica, que ? a de saber se o aparelho (alcool?metro) de marca DRAGER e\/ou ALCOTESTE MKIII?P ? um e o mesmo modelo de vers?es melhoradas ou se na realidade se trata de modelos distintos entre si, com caracter?sticas distintas. Tal quest?o, a suscitar d?vidas, devia ter sido apurada na altura e em sede pr?prias atrav?s do IPQ ou da ANSR.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-48-18-9ptcbr-c1-a-s1-2019-01-10\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"1 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0430\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-48-18-9ptcbr-c1-a-s1-2019-01-10\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-48-18-9ptcbr-c1-a-s1-2019-01-10\\\/\",\"name\":\"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 48\\\/18.9PTCBR.C1-A.S1 \u2013 2019-01-10 - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-30T05:53:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-48-18-9ptcbr-c1-a-s1-2019-01-10\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-48-18-9ptcbr-c1-a-s1-2019-01-10\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-48-18-9ptcbr-c1-a-s1-2019-01-10\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 48\\\/18.9PTCBR.C1-A.S1 \u2013 2019-01-10\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 48\/18.9PTCBR.C1-A.S1 \u2013 2019-01-10 - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-48-18-9ptcbr-c1-a-s1-2019-01-10\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 48\/18.9PTCBR.C1-A.S1 \u2013 2019-01-10","og_description":"Relator: JULIO PEREIRA. I - H? oposi??o quando, no dom?nio da mesma legisla??o, o ac?rd?o recorrido e o ac?rd?o fundamento, relativamente ? mesma quest?o de direito, assentem em solu??es opostas ? cf. art. 437.?, n.?s 1 e 2, do CPP ? exigindo-se ainda, segundo jurisprud?ncia pac?fica do STJ, que haja identidade das situa??es de facto. II - ? manifesto que o recurso em apre?o n?o envolve qualquer diss?dio e muito menos oposi??o sobre quest?es de direito. O que o recorrente pretende ? que o STJ fixe jurisprud?ncia sobre uma quest?o de facto de ?ndole t?cnica, que ? a de saber se o aparelho (alcool?metro) de marca DRAGER e\/ou ALCOTESTE MKIII?P ? um e o mesmo modelo de vers?es melhoradas ou se na realidade se trata de modelos distintos entre si, com caracter?sticas distintas. Tal quest?o, a suscitar d?vidas, devia ter sido apurada na altura e em sede pr?prias atrav?s do IPQ ou da ANSR.","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-48-18-9ptcbr-c1-a-s1-2019-01-10\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"1 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0430"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-48-18-9ptcbr-c1-a-s1-2019-01-10\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-48-18-9ptcbr-c1-a-s1-2019-01-10\/","name":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 48\/18.9PTCBR.C1-A.S1 \u2013 2019-01-10 - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-30T05:53:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-48-18-9ptcbr-c1-a-s1-2019-01-10\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-48-18-9ptcbr-c1-a-s1-2019-01-10\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-48-18-9ptcbr-c1-a-s1-2019-01-10\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 48\/18.9PTCBR.C1-A.S1 \u2013 2019-01-10"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/775079","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=775079"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=775079"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=775079"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=775079"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=775079"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=775079"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=775079"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=775079"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}